If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

MINNEAPOLIS (AP)—In this epic NFL game, the players have an early lead on the owners.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered an immediate end to the lockout Monday, siding with the players in their fight with the owners over how to divide the $9 billion business.

Nelson granted a request for a preliminary injunction to lift the two-month lockout, saying she was swayed by the players’ argument that the NFL’s first work stoppage since 1987 is hurting their careers.

(AP)
The plaintiffs “have made a strong showing that allowing the League to continue their ‘lockout’ is presently inflicting, and will continue to inflict, irreparable harm upon them, particularly when weighed against the lack of any real injury that would be imposed on the NFL by issuing the preliminary injunction,” Nelson wrote.

AP - Apr 19, 11:38 am EDT 1 of 7 NFL Gallery The NFL said it would ask Nelson to put her order on hold with a stay so it can pursue an expedited appeal to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

“We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes,” the league said. “We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal.”

Said Jim Quinn, an attorney for the players: “They better act quickly, because as of right now there’s no stay and, presumably, players could sign with teams. There are no guidelines as of right now, so they have to put something in place quickly.

“It is their league: They can put it whatever they decide. If they put in something not restrictive to the players and fair to the players, that is fine. If not, we will litigate.”

If the injunction is upheld, the NFL must resume business, although under what guidelines is uncertain.

It could invoke the 2010 rules for free agency, meaning players would need six seasons of service before becoming unrestricted free agents when their contracts expire; previously, it was four years. The requirement for unrestricted free agents would be four years rather than the three years before 2010. There also was no salary cap in 2010, meaning teams could spend as much— or as little—as they wanted.

Also, the NFL would need to determine what or if offseason workouts can be held while the appeal is being heard.

Clearly, it’s complicated.

The NFL has even argued to Nelson that stopping the lockout would open all 32 teams up to additional antitrust claims simply for working together to solve the labor dispute. Antitrust claims carry triple damages for any harm proven, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

At the hearing before Nelson on April 6, the crux of the argument from NFL lawyer David Boies was that the court shouldn’t have control of a conflict that grew out of a labor dispute. Boies even tried to lighten the mood by telling her, “No lawyer ever wants to stand in front of a judge and say, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction.”’

The owners, in support of their argument, pointed to their pending unfair labor charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board that the players didn’t negotiate in good faith.

Nelson disagreed—and threw cold water on that hope, too.

“Although the NFL has filed a charge here, the NLRB has yet to issue any complaint and, in this court’s considered judgment, it is likely that the Board will dismiss the charge,” she wrote in her ruling.

Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union. A group of players filed the injunction request along with a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the league.

Nelson rejected the league’s prediction that the NLRB would see the union’s breakup as temporary, thus supporting the assertion that the dissolution was purely a tactical move.

“There is no legal support for any requirement that a disclaimer be permanent,” Nelson wrote. “Employees have the right not only to organize as a union but also to refrain from such representation and, as relevant here, to ‘de-unionize.”’

Nelson also stated that the so-called decertification was legitimate because of “serious consequences” for the players.

“This court need not resolve the debate about whether their motive was influenced by the expectation of this litigation,” she wrote, calling that question irrelevant as long as the union followed through on the breakup.

Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing on April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year, met over four days with a federal magistrate but did not announce any progress on solving the impasse.

They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after another judge holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.

And now comes Nelson’s decision to lift the injunction.

“(T)he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales,” she wrote. “And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football—who have a strong investment in the 2011 season—is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation.”

With appeals expected, the fight seems likely to drag on through the spring and, possibly, into the summer. The closer it gets to August, when training camps and the preseason get into full swing, the more likely it becomes that regular season games will be lost.

The NFL is going forward with the draft, which begins Thursday night.

Dolphins alternate player representative John Denney(notes) said he didn’t think the ruling was the end of the dispute.

“Right now we got what we wanted, but it may be temporary,” he said. “We’ll have to let the judicial process play out.”

And the antitrust lawsuit is pending, too, with lead plaintiffs that include MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady(notes) and Peyton Manning(notes). The suit has been combined with two other similar claims from retirees, former players and rookies-to-be, with Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller the lead plaintiff in that group.

Osi Umenyiora(notes), the New York Giants defensive end and one of the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “win for the players and for the fans” in a statement.

“The lockout is bad for everyone, and players will continue to fight it,” Umenyiora said. “We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love.”

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

Maybe I don't understand the whole situation, but how can a Judge do this? Are Owners not able to run their teams as they see fit. It was their option to opt out of the current CBA. Under what law can a judge force private entities to run their business in a manner they do not wish to do so?

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

Maybe I don't understand the whole situation, but how can a Judge do this? Are Owners not able to run their teams as they see fit. It was their option to opt out of the current CBA. Under what law can a judge force private entities to run their business in a manner they do not wish to do so?

I believe it has to do with the contracts that the players have. They are entitled to the pay for doing the work, as per the contract. The judge basically ruled that, for the moment, the employer cannot lock out a contracted employee who has not violated the contract.

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

Football's Future If the Players Win
There would be no draft. Incoming players would sell their services to the richest teams..Article Comments (177) more in Opinion ».
EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
.Twitter
LinkedIn
+ More close MySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookFarkViadeoOrkut Text
By ROGER GOODELL
Late Monday afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Richard Nelson issued a ruling that may significantly alter professional football as we know it.

For six weeks, there has been a work stoppage in the National Football League as the league has sought to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement with the players. But Judge Nelson ordered the end of the stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history.

What would the NFL look like without a collectively bargained compromise? For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.

For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.

For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com.

Under the union lawyers' plan, reflected in the complaint that they filed in federal court, the NFL would be forced to operate in a dramatically different way. To be sure, their approach would benefit some star players and their agents (and, of course, the lawyers themselves). But virtually everyone else—including the vast majority of players as well as the fans—would suffer.

View Full Image

Getty Images

Small-market teams like the Buffalo Bills would suffer.
.Rather than address the challenge of improving the collective-bargaining agreement for the benefit of the game, the union-financed lawsuit attacks virtually every aspect of the current system including the draft, the salary cap and free-agency rules, which collectively have been responsible for the quality and popularity of the game for nearly two decades. A union victory threatens to overturn the carefully constructed system of competitive balance that makes NFL games and championship races so unpredictable and exciting.

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Any league-wide rule relating to terms of player employment would be subject to antitrust challenge in courts throughout the country. Any player could sue—on his own behalf or representing a class—to challenge any league rule that he believes unreasonably restricts the "market" for his services.

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:

• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.

• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.

• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.

• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.

• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances. Each club could have its own program—or not.

Any league-wide agreement on these subjects would be the subject of antitrust challenge by any player who asserted that he had been "injured" by the policy or whose lawyer perceived an opportunity to bring attention to his client or himself. Some such agreements might survive antitrust scrutiny, but the prospect of litigation would inhibit league-wide agreements with respect to most, if not all, of these subjects.

In an environment where they are essentially independent contractors, many players would likely lose significant benefits and other protections previously provided on a collective basis as part of the union-negotiated collective-bargaining agreement. And the prospect of improved benefits for retired players would be nil.

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players—those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars—play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Prior to filing their litigation, players and their representatives publicly praised the current system and argued for extending the status quo. Now they are singing a far different tune, attacking in the courts the very arrangements they said were working just fine.

Is this the NFL that fans want? A league where carefully constructed rules proven to generate competitive balance—close and exciting games every Sunday and close and exciting divisional and championship contests—are cast aside? Do the players and their lawyers have so little regard for the fans that they think this really serves their interests?

These outcomes are inevitable under any approach other than a comprehensive collective-bargaining agreement. That is especially true of an approach that depends on litigation settlements negotiated by lawyers. But that is what the players' attorneys are fighting for in court. And that is what will be at stake as the NFL appeals Judge Nelson's ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

I believe it has to do with the contracts that the players have. They are entitled to the pay for doing the work, as per the contract. The judge basically ruled that, for the moment, the employer cannot lock out a contracted employee who has not violated the contract.

So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.

I think it goes like this:
The NFL has players under contract (which the contract is a key point). Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (second key point). So if the owners want to lock the players out then they are effectively canceling the contracts and thus making the players all free agents.

I don't think the judge is telling the NFL they can't have a lockout as much telling them if they do the above is the result.

Once the above happens now you have to worry about the solidarity of the owners. Does playing for NE start looking good to Manning? Does playing for Miami start looking good to Brady? Do teams start pursuing players once thought locked up to other teams? Do the Giants see an opportunity to spend like drunken sailors and super-stock their team? What about a group of owners breaking away from the NFL for their own football league with their own interests more at the forefront and a bevy of stars to make a play for? IOW- it becomes chaos.

Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

------

"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

Re: Judge orders end to NFL lockout, league to appeal

So factories can't lay off their staff for a couple of months then either?

The NFL is privately owned, if they want to shut their doors, then they can shut their doors. I don't see the legal grounding on this either.

The lock out is not because the business is closing its doors. It's being used as a bargaining ploy. Yes. You're right. If they want to go out of business, they can. But if they're planning on staying in business, then they are being required to play fair with their employees under contract.

If that hypothetical factory wants to lay off staff, they can. But if I have a contract with you, neither one of us can unilaterally cancel it or modify it.